nate silver said:
Here's Silver's article since I'm just regurgitating it anyway: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...g-debate-bounce-but-a-small-one-could-matter/
Obama v. Romney: Debate Round 3. Live Commentary and Heckling Official Thread.
- Thread starter Cutlass
- Start date
Here's Silver's article since I'm just regurgitating it anyway: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...g-debate-bounce-but-a-small-one-could-matter/
utgotye
Warlord
Romney did what he needed to do: appear presidential, something Obama did not at times. Still this will be going down to the wire. As I said in the other thread I have it 248-247 Romney. Both basically need Ohio plus 1 or all minus Ohio. We'll see what happens.
Cheers!
Cheers!
I love that my vote (cast in Ohio) matters more than people living in just about every other state.
And I don't even have to live in Ohio.
And I don't even have to live in Ohio.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I liked one of the commentators viewpoints from CNN tonight. To paraphrase, Obama won a point in tonights debate, and he also won a point in the second debate. The problem with that is Romney won six points in the first debate, which set the current tone for the election.
Overall that puts Romeny six to Obama's two, and although Obama actually woke up and did well in the second and third debate it doesnt really matter since people remembered how bad he did in the first one. The overall advantage of the debates goes to Romney, even if he lost them 2 to 1.
This will probably be as close of an election as Bush/Gore was, if not closer.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
Certainly it tightened the race up, MobBoss, but I still feel kinda comfy now. I'm not ecstatic, and I'm not willing to be my life that Obama will win or anything, but I feel that it's reasonably likely he'll coast to a comfortable but narrow win.
/me grumbles and bites his reply.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Man if Obama did anything this debate it was looking presidential. He had that "I just killed Osama Bin Laden and now I'm looking at you" stare going on. Dude looked fierce, confident, and on point.
As for substance? I like the "Obama argued Obama's positions better than Romney did" bit. Romney said he'd do all the same things but with more strength, and leadership, and whatever, and it was all so empty. Also, he lost his gleaming eye smile from debate 1.
utgotye
Warlord
Frankly, Obama looked irritated to me. Like "Why am I here? I could be busy spending taxpayer money to go to my next fundraiser", as opposed to actually doing his job.
And once again, and finally Romney called him on it, attacking your opponent isn't a plan for the future. Attacking your opponent (constantly) is something who is behind (and knows it) does. In three debates, Obama never gave us a single reason why we should vote for him. He gave us all reasons not to vote for Romney, but no reasons why we should give him a second term.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
I like Obamacare and want to do everything I can to protect it from repeal. /reason
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
You don't have too much to worry about then. Romney will just repeal Obamacare and replace it with Romenycare, which is the same thing as Obamacare.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
I don't believe it. I fully believe the Republicans when they say they will gut and burn Obamacare.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Either you aren't listening to him or you aren't watching at all. He gave lots of reasons and while he attacks Romney a lot he champions his successes constantly.
Murky
Deity
Obama was the clear winner of this debate. Some might argue that he didn't do enough to show that Romney's foreign policy skills are terrible. I think most people already know that foreign policy is probably Romney worst trait.
We know that Romney's foreign advisers would be the same guys that advised George W. Bush and they are neoconservatives. More than likely they would get us involved in yet another war in the middle-east.
Romney's foreign policy decisions would likely be a disaster just like with his tax and budget plans.
We know that Romney's foreign advisers would be the same guys that advised George W. Bush and they are neoconservatives. More than likely they would get us involved in yet another war in the middle-east.
Romney's foreign policy decisions would likely be a disaster just like with his tax and budget plans.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
Don't bother. While I may share the liberal trait for panicking at the drop of a hat conservatives have a far more annoying psychological quirk.
In conservative thinking supreme confidence is more important than anything else. They tend to hold the line and not show any weakness to "outsiders." Don't ever expect them to admit to a setback until the smoke and fire is all around them.
Yeah, I was busy watching the best team in the NFL annihilate a playoff team from last year. Looks like precisely nothing in this debate was a surprise anyway.Nate Silver said:
sophie
Break My Heart
Well I was sleeping. But if I wasn't sleeping I would have been too busy watching the Giants win their second pennant in 3 years to have bothered!
Also...Bears best team in the NFL? Really?
You have to keep in mind that the feds would never be involved in any of this stuff if the cities and states hadn't entirely fraked them up in the first place. The feds are not interfering enough to fix what the states have broken. The feds didn't break it. It was broken long before they got involved.
As for the economy, it was never better than when the fed were the most actively involved. That was the golden age of capitalism.
You got a different candidate? Who else is there?
The Whiners got crushed by Jersey/A and got beat by the decent-but-not-great Vikings. The Packers have been painfully inconsistent, much like the Cheatriots, and both of those teams are barely sitting above .500. The Texans have holes that one can exploit - especially their surprisingly ineffective running game - and got blown out of their own building by the Packers. (The win over the Ravens doesn't really prove much of anything; the Ravens are a bad team with a bad offense, and the only person the Texans really needed to care about stopping was Ray Rice. Any team can stop the run if it knows the run is coming, as the Saints' successful run defense from first-and-goal on the 1 against the Bucs showed.) Jersey/A is, as usual, flawed and a very hard team to figure out.
The Bears, on the other hand, have one loss that came in a game with four picks - a statistical outlier, even for Catler - and with Matt Forte out of the game injured. The Bears don't rely on Forte as much as they did last season, but he's still an incredibly important part of their offense so obviously it makes sense that losing him would be a serious problem. Plus, Chicago's defense is, what, highest in the league in DVOA so far this season?
Right now, as far as I'm concerned, the Bears are sitting right above the Giants in the NFC, and the Texans are more or less by themselves at the top of the abysmal AFC.
sophie
Break My Heart
Hm. Fair point. I'm just not sure if I'm quite ready to give da Bears the nod yet. I'd like to see them play in a few more legitimate matchups (not wasting the Colts at home or trouncing the abysmal Jags. The Lions would have been a legit matchup last year but they've just been underperforming so awfully it's hard to take them seriously this year) before I'd be prepared to say it. They're certainly in that top 5 mix though.
And as for the 9ers I'd say they could be in the conversation for best in the league when their on. When their defense is clicking and Alex Smith isn't trying to force himself into an elite qb conversation they're probably the most complete team in the nfl. When they aren't focusing though, when their defense just casually lets Bradshaw waltz down the field and when Alex Smith takes risks that he obviously wouldn't have done last year though, that's where they become exposed.
What about the failcons though?
And as for the 9ers I'd say they could be in the conversation for best in the league when their on. When their defense is clicking and Alex Smith isn't trying to force himself into an elite qb conversation they're probably the most complete team in the nfl. When they aren't focusing though, when their defense just casually lets Bradshaw waltz down the field and when Alex Smith takes risks that he obviously wouldn't have done last year though, that's where they become exposed.
What about the failcons though?
